| Title |
Validation of 14,500 operated knees registered in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register: registration completeness and validity of key variables
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s45752 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lene Rahr-Wagner, Thillemann, Alma Pedersen, Martin Lind |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to validate the registration in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register (DKRR) by assessing the registration completeness of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction code and detecting the validity of important key variables. Furthermore, we assessed data quality of patient-related outcome scores. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,765,156
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#259
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,529
of 194,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.